APHC010193922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 244/2025 Between: 1. CHEBROLU PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.23-6-31/A, FLAT NO.102, CHEBROLU TOWERS, KOMMUVARI STREET, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SYED SHAKEEL AHMED, SUPER STRENGTH CONSTRUCTIONS, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR. 2. SUPER STRENGTH CONSTRUCTIONS, , A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SYED SHAKEEL AHMED, S/O. LATE LATEEF, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.21-9/1-1 OF, MM TOWERS, PEDAPUDIVARI STREET, MADHURA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. MALLADI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 66 YEARS R/O.D.NO.54-15-5/1C, SAI SADAN, BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 520008. 2. SMT PISIPATI LAKSHMI SAILAJA, W/O. M. SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.54-15-5/1C, SAI SADAN, BHARATHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 520008. ...RESPONDENT(S): May be pleased to costs imposed in the decree passed dated 06.01.2025 passed in O.S. No. 165 of 2022 on the file of 2 A.S.No.244 of 2025 the Court of the Honble court VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Judgement dated 06.01.2025 in OS 165 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada and pass such Counsel for the Appellant(S): CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.165 of 2022 dated 06.01.2025 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”). 2. The plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the appellants and respondents herein are the defendants. 3 A.S.No.244 of 2025 3. The appellants instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.08.2019 directing the respondent herein to perform her part of the contract of sale agreement by paying balance sale consideration, to accept a transfer and possession of the plaint schedule property or alternatively for damages of Rs.90,00,000/- along with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. 5. Admittedly, on a memo filed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court dismissed the suit as not pressed with costs and consequently ordered to pay suits costs of Rs.3,77,302/- to the defendants by the plaintiffs. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal by vehemently contending that the Trial Court erred in imposing such heavy costs when the matter was dismissed as not pressed. 4 A.S.No.244 of 2025 7. During the pendency of this appeal, Registry sent a notice to the respondents/defendants and the same was served, but none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8. Heard Sri Goli G.V.S.Sai, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. 9. It is settled proposition as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust1, that “the object is to streamline the award of costs and simplify the process of assessment, while making the cost “actual and realistic”. While ascertainment of actuals in necessary in regard to expenditure incurred (as for example travel expenses of witnesses, cost of obtaining certified copies etc.) in so far as advocates fee is concerned, the emphasis should be on “realistic” rather than “actual”. The courts are not concerned with the number of lawyers engaged or the high rate of day fee paid to them. For the 1 2012 (109) AIC 236; 2012 (90) ALR 480 5 A.S.No.244 of 2025 present, the Advocate fee should be a realistic normal single fee.” 10. In the present case on hand, on perusal of the material placed on record, admittedly, before commencing trial itself, when a memo filed by the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed as not pressed with costs, but imposing costs of Rs.3,77,302/- payable to the defendants by the plaintiffs. 11. The Trial Court concerned, while computing the suit costs entitled by the defendants, fixed the advocate fee for Senior is Rs.2,76,200/- as well Rs.1,00,000/- towards Junior fee, the same is seriously disputed by the plaintiffs. 12. Now, it is required to refer Rule 7 and 10 of The Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Fee Rules 2010, which reads as follows: “7. In all suits where any declaration of title to any property is involved along with any other consequential relief such as possession of injunction, the fee shall be fixed at the rate 10% of the total value of the property taken as the value for the purpose of Courts Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 or any such Act for the time being in 6 A.S.No.244 of 2025 force, subject to a minimum of Rs.2,000/- in the Court of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and a minimum of Rs.4,000/- in other Courts subject to a maximum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 10. In all suits for enforcement of an agreement of sale or any other relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the fee shall be fixed as in suits for declaration of title to immovable property mentioned in Rule 7 and any other suit for recovery of possession under a contract of sale or otherwise or for the recovery of money under such a contract shall be treated likewise.” [ 7. Before the Trial Court the value of the suit is determined as Rs.91,50,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.92,426/- was paid by the plaintiffs under Section 39 of APCF and S.V.Act. 8. On perusal of grounds of appeal, it is found that the suit has being reached the stage of framing of issue, but the trial did not commence, in such a situation, it is clear that the appearance as well written statement was made by the defendants before the Trial Court through their counsel. 7 A.S.No.244 of 2025 9. Thereby, reading the above, it is crystal clear that in view of the Rule 7 of The Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Fee Rules 2010, the Advocate fee shall be fixed even maximum as Rs.1,50,000/-, but it is quite astonishing that how the Trial Court gave Rs.2,76,200/- towards advocate fee for Senior, which is nothing but whimsical act without application of mind by the Trial Court. 10. Now, coming to the entitlement of the Fee for Junior Advocate is concerned, it is required to be noted Rule 31 and 42 of The Andhra Pradesh Advocates’ Fee Rules 2010, which reads as follows: “31. In all cases where the value of the claim exceeds Rs.5,000/- and in all cases where an Advocate with standing of more than 15 years at the Bar is assisted by a Junior Advocate appealing along with him from the stage of pleadings, an additional fee calculated at 1/3rd of the fee allowable according to these Rules shall be fixed by the Court. 42. In all civil miscellaneous petitions in the appeal or other proceedings the Court shall fix the fee payable to the successful party at a minimum of 8 A.S.No.244 of 2025 Rs.500/- whenever costs are directed to be paid in such petitions.” 11. In view of the above, it is categorical that to get the fee for junior advocate, it is required by an Advocate with standing of more than 15 years at the Bar is assisted by a Junior Advocate appealing along with him from the stage of pleadings. As stated supra, the suit was dismissed as not pressed even before commencement of Trial and it not the version that the Junior Advocate is assisted the learned Senior Advocate concerned from the pleadings till the disposal of the suit on its merits. Furthermore, the Court concerned is very much required to take into account the expenses incurred by the parties for the purpose of attendance on the adjourned dates, while computing the realistic costs entitled. Thereby, in view of the above circumstances, in the interest of justice, no fee for Junior Advocate shall be granted. 12. Having regard to the above, the Trial Court absolutely made an error in computing the suit costs payable by the 9 A.S.No.244 of 2025 plaintiffs to the defendants towards Advocate fee for Senior as well Junior. Thereby, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the suit costs for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Advocate fee, besides Rs.102/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- towards Stamp on Vakalat, Writing charges and Typing charges alone, accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the plaintiffs is liable to be considered partly. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the decree and judgment dated 06.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.165 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada only to the extent of reducing the costs of the suit payable by the appellants/plaintiffs to the defendants from Rs.3,77,302/- to Rs.1,51,102/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 27.02.2026 Krs 10 A.S.No.244 of 2025 347 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO.244 of 2025 ( JUDGMNET ) DATE: 27.02.2026 Krs